Did you mean to type runs better? Because myself and a few others have noticed that the visuals online looked slightly worse after the latest update, and the performance slightly improved.
My friend who owns the game told me the same thing. Slightly better framerate but less detailed visuals, with whatever bug issues regarding heists and whatnot addressed (per the notes anyway).
Why would they force a downgrade in visuals if there weren't many complaints about performance beforehand? Did they feel as though it wasn't performing properly by their own standards or did they have to do this to allow the patch to address the issues at hand (although, the patch notes don't provide much info as to what those issues are besides GTA Online)?
So when machines with half a gig of RAM were still being referred to as current gen in mid-2013, what would you call the Xbox One and PS4?
You're just making up arbitrary shit to piss people off. There's absolutely no defending what you wrote, it's trolling, pure and simple. I don't like the new 'new' VW Beetle, doesn't mean I no longer recognise that it exists. I also don't say that this Beetle doesn't count as the next-gen Beetle, because its 0-60 is pretty damn slow. I accept it and move on. Stop being such a child, damn.
Also then, what 'gen' is the 3DS?
I'm not trying to piss anyone off and I'm not trolling you, I don't appreciate being labeled as these things. I'm trying to figure out why they actually downgraded the visuals, what the justification was for it. If it's because PS4/Xbone can't handle all the changes the patch made without downgrading visuals, which is really the only logical explanation I could think of, then that could prove to be a problem as time goes on and games need to be patched for whatever reason. Seriously -- why else would you downgrade visuals when the vast majority of people who played this game before 1.08 had no complaints whatsoever about performance? It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and my "arbitrary" post you refer to as a means to pissing everyone off was merely speculation; I was not posting anything as though it were absolute fact.
As for my rant about the hardware, I just think it's silly in regards to other tech they could have used. There had to be a better solution for the CPU while still maintaining a $400 price point.